In Episode Three, Ben Radford, Doctor Atlantis and I chat with biologist Glen Kuban about the infamous Zuiyo-maru “plesiosaur” (read: basking shark) captured by a Japanese trawler in 1977.Â We also discuss his extensive research into the Paluxy Dinosaur/Man Tracks controversy.

In Episode Four we interview Dr Adam Stuart Smith, a specialist in aquatic prehistoric reptiles. We talk with Adam about plesiosaurs and supposed sightings and ‘evidence’ of the Loch Ness Monster.

But best of all, Monster Talk features on Cryptomundo, where notorious Cryptoloon Loren Coleman says of us:

MonsterTalk, the cleverly misnamed, new site for this podcast series, is a stalking horse for CSICOP.org, the Skeptical Inquirer, and a variety of other debunking alliances.

16 Comments

A classic case of wanting something to be true, so assuming it is. I think it would unbelievably cool for there to be pleisosaurs. That would rock… except when I went to the beach. I look too much like a manatee to feel safe with pleisosaurs in the water.

What these loons fail to understand EVER is that it takes a sufficient population of animals to survive (there ain’t no such thing as an Immortal Nessie) and that there needs to be a sufficient stock of prey animals to keep them alive. If you don’t have those things at a minimum, you don’t have a case.

@guest1999:
Loren is a publicity hound and he is not above begging for money for his personal collection of cryptid memorabilia. There is nothing inherently wrong with promoting your business (his is writing and being a spokesperson for cryptozoology and Fortean things). However, I would argue that he is simply a conduit for cryptonews without filters. In doing this, it promotes utter nonsense on the same level as legitimate stories (about folklore issues for example). I find this a bit unethical.

@Karen Stollznow:
I’d say he does more than flirt with it – he makes a good part of his living on it. (Mysterious America is totally Fortean.) I find it interesting that he used to (or might again if it becomes profitable) include potential supernatural explanations for cryptids. He disavows that now in favor of “scientific” investigation.

Cryptid investigation depends almost exclusively on anecdotes, there is such sparse physical evidence ever found. That seems to make the field more like the study of human psychology, folklore, sociology and perception than biology/zoology. Don’t you think?

To his credit, Loren does have training in the social aspects and apparently some zoology. I’m just not impressed by the rampant speculation that makes up most of this so-called science. I find it more like sham inquiry.